Debabrata Ghosh v. Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ORS.

01.04.2024 Court No.13 Item No.50 AP WPA 5235 of 2024 Debabrata Ghosh Vs.

Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya Mr. Aninda Bhattacharya ... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Abhimanyu Shandilya Ms. Mrighanki Chakraborty Ms. Simi Paul Mr. Anousko Das ... For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by his nonconsideration for recruitment to the post of Apprentice Development Officer issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 2nd June, 2023.

2.

He submits that due to an error in the declaration dated 16th June, counter-signed by the respondents, the total figure of net first year premium income for the year 2019-2020 has been described as 91,076/-. In response of a RTI application, the petitioner was informed he actually collected a sum of Rs.2,60,373/- for the said period. There are other inconsistencies in his declaration that is available in the LIC's response to the RTI Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner, cannot be faulted for a mistake in his declaration. The petitioner was not selected or called for interview. The petitioner, therefore, seeks an opportunity of participating in the recruitment process.

3.

The respondents in reply stated that all nine posts have been filled up. However, counsel for the respondents indicates that the petitioner actually did not meet the eligibility criteria stipulated under the heading experience on Clause 7(c) of the recruitment notification. 4.

It appears that a candidate applying for the post must have covered and/or procured life insurance for at least 50 lives per year in any three of the immediate proceeding four financial years prior to the recruitment notice of 2023.

5.

It appears from the pleadings in the writ petition that the petitioner has only in two financial years i.e. 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 procured 109 and 52 lives covers. For the years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 the petitioner obtained 42 and 38 lives covers.

6.

Although, the above is not a ground for rejecting the petitioner's application, it appears to this Court that did not fulfill the above criteria. He was therefore even otherwise not entitled to participate in the recruitment process.

7.

In these circumstances, the petitioner could not have been considered for recruitment to the post of Apprentice Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

8.

Hence, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed.

9.

There shall be no order as to costs.

10.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)